Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

I regularly argue the case here that the concept of human rights is fundamentally misjudged and even that it threatens our ability to maintain the integrity of our civilisation. Still we see lots of people and organisations involved in the Counterjihad movement describing themselves as human rights activists. If these people had analysed the situation properly, they would realise that, in essence, it is the ideology of human rights that we are struggling against. Consider the media-political elites who parrot the “religion of peace” line. Does anyone really believe that they have made a serious study of Islamic doctrine or history in order to reach this conclusion? Of course not. Why, then, do they defend it with such passionate conviction? Because they navigate the moral complexity of the world by applying simple sets of rules like “All religions are basically the same; they just have different names for the gods,” “People the world over are basically the same,” “People are basically good unless poverty or demagogues somehow warp their natural virtue.” These ideas are rarely articulated explicitly, but they shape much of their worldview of our ruling caste. Ultimately, these ideas derive from the tangible written codes of human rights. They are designed to disempower judgement.

The idea of human rights can seem appealing or unappealing depending on where the focus of your critique of Islam is. If your focus is on countries that are already islamised, the idea of human rights is appealing to you because it lends moral sanction to what might otherwise appear to be racist western moral imperialism, criticising the funny brown people for the way they do things. If we look at the history of human rights, this indeed is how they first came to prominence. Most people assume that human rights first hit the big time in the immediate aftermath of WW2. That’s actually not true. Various human rights declarations and treaties were signed then but no one paid much attention to them. The concept of human rights was barely mentioned in international diplomacy for years afterwards and, insofar as it was, it tended to be invoked by third-worlders to demand the decolonisation of their countries. It was only after this decolonisation process was complete that western governments began to take up the idea of human rights again. Why? Because once the third-worlders had control of their own governments, their leaders, predictably enough, began to do stupid and barbaric things. Western governments felt the need to criticise their conduct but feared accusations of continued imperial interference. Human rights was the solution they found.

That the concept of human rights is so much to the fore in the Counterjihad movement is largely explained by the fact that it is dominated by Americans. As yet, the US has barely been affected by Islamic colonisation en masse. Outside of a few blighted areas, the Muslim presence is minimally visible. And, unlike in Europe, the Muslims there tend to be above-averagely prosperous. To the uninitiated, then, the Muslims don’t seem that bad. For the initiated few (Robert Spencer and the like), therefore, pointing to the barbarities that occur in countries where Islam already holds sway is a reasonable strategy for trying to wake your own people up to the threat that Islam represents. Since you’ll undoubtedly be accused of racism and islamophobia, having the human rights shield to hand is a big help.

Europe is not in this fortunate position, however. Our countries are undergoing mass and rapid Islamic colonisation. We don’t need to point to Islamic barbarity in Indonesia or Bangladesh because we can see it just around the corner. For us, the concept of human rights is our enemy. Because, once it is entrenched, it will limit our ability to take the bold and vigorous actions necessary to defend ourselves against Islam. For example, actions such as banning the public practice of Islam outright, expelling some or all Muslims from the country, banning items of Islamic attire, even executing or extraditing jihadists, become difficult or impossible in a human rights-friendly environment. At this stage, there is no solution for Europe that does not involve the mass expulsion of Muslims. Delegitimising the concept of human rights should be a common goal of all Europeans involved in resisting the Islamic onslaught.

Why, then, do so many European Counterjihad organisations cling to the concept of human rights rather than critique it? Again, because the movement is dominated by Americans and tends to revolve around American websites like JihadWatch or Gates of Vienna. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not criticising them. These people do great work and were Islam-Aware years ago when I was still a naive Guardian reader. But those resisting Islam in Europe need to realise that the American perspective is not our perspective. We need to learn to think for ourselves not be unduly influenced by outsiders.

If we analyse how Europe came to be in this predicament, it is clear that an infatuation with America among European elites provides a large part of the explanation. Our leaders were and are mesmerised by this seemingly successful example of a “nation of immigrants” (a contradiction in terms), a country that defines itself artificially according to declarative rules rather than being spontaneously defined by its common ancestry or shared history. It is clear that the obsession with the issue of race in American politics in the 50s and 60s, and the supposedly noble crusades against racism, also had a major influence on how the immigration issue came to be handled in Europe.

Of course, it’s not America’s fault that weak-minded European elites are irrationally hypnotised by it. But it’s tragic to see that this infatuation continues even among Counterjihad activists who now find themselves resisting the consequences of the same attitude among their own political class. Some involved in this movement essentially live for the next pat on the head from GOV and allow much of their thinking to be shaped by these American activists. Take PI, for example, a great German website which I borrow stories from regularly. It has become the focal point of the resistance to Islam within Germany. But the words at the top of its web page say “Pro-American”, “Pro-Israel” and only then “Against the islamisation of Europe”. I once sent PI a tip about what I thought was an interesting story I had uncovered while rummaging through the Wikileaks cables. I posted the story here. The gist was that a Brussels bureaucrat had asked an American diplomat to get the US government to pressure Angela Merkel into not opposing Turkey’s EU accession. Surely this would be a story of interest to Germans, I thought? But PI didn’t run it. Why? Because it reflects badly on America and that won’t do for a website that bills itself as Pro-American?

Those of us involved in the Counterjihad movement in Europe must learn to decouple from the American perspective. That doesn’t mean we should regard American anti-jihad activists in anything other than a fraternal way. It does mean we should cease to slavishly follow their example. For them, resistance to Islam is a form of intellectual dilettantism. For us, it is a mortal struggle for existence. Most especially, we need to depart from the American example in emphatically rejecting the concept of human rights, which is designed to restrain democracy. We must insist, instead, on democracy red in tooth and claw. Our end vision must be of a day when the peoples of Europe can be persuaded democratically to expel the entire Muslim population of the continent. That’s how it has to end if Europe is to save itself. And to get there, the idea of human rights – rules applicable in all circumstances that take precedence over the will of the people – must be ruthlessly attacked, critiqued and, eventually, expunged from our moral lexicon. Counterjihadists who describe themselves as human rights activists are unwittingly facilitating the islamisation of our continent by promoting this false ideal.

Democracy, tolerance, peace, dialogue, diversity, Human Rights... All our institutions and terms are emptied of their right meanings.

Human Rights, are the Universal Human Rights of 1948

At the same time there are the sharia rights, the Cairo declaration of 1990, which is being named "human rights", due probably both to manipulation and confusion, to make people think that one is talking about The Human Rights (of 1948), when in fact, one is talking about the sharia rights (of 1990) and the rights for muslims and NOT any rights for anybody else.

"Those of us involved in the Counterjihad movement in Europe must learn to decouple from the American perspective...For them, resistance to Islam is a form of intellectual dilettantism."

That is very unkind. Many of us are seriously concerned about what is happening in Europe, though you might not know it from our media. You make it sound as if we see resisting jihad as something akin to filling in crossword puzzles. And I assure you we are not a nation of effete intellectuals...though you wouldn't know it from our elitist media.

Perhaps "intellectual dilettantism" is overly harsh. But the essential point remains valid: we are in a much worse position than you are, vis-a-vis Muslims. And we can't allow our response to be restrained by frivolous conceptions like "human rights".

Where islam spread darkness dies. I am pakistani muslim please donot spread hate against muslims in the world. You are only highlighting minor small black points. Islam is the name of love peace and light.

Politicians are just using "human rights" claims as a delaying tactic - an excuse for inaction.

If they wanted to they could easily use it against Islamists. They could use this:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

—Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

According to that the teachings of Islam are against human rights.

Politicians aren't going to act unless you show them they'll be voted out of office for their wrong actions.

"Article 18Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

You need public campaigns. You have to put this on posters, on public advertising spaces and contrast it with Islam's core doctrines.

Islamohysteria is a simplistic current in European politics, which seeks to place the blame on mass immigration (demographic genocide) into European lands, solely on the heads of the Mohammedans who benefit from it, rather than the people who purposefully engineer it to create conflict to begin with. Proponents of the worldview are usually strong liberals, who, seeing Mohammedanism and its "reactionary" values as a threat to liberal society, allign openly with Zionists. It is essentially a more "progressive" equivelent of neoconservatism. Some well intentioned people, who are not aware of the facts of who is really behind immigration, may be caught up in such movements.They represent an ideology where the importance of ethnicity is played down or dismissed completely, and the need for the preservation of "Western cultural and democratic values", questionable liberal invented "values" is commonly used as the substitute key argument against immigration. Their rhetorics and activities are almost completely focused on Islam and Muslims; other immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, Chinese, non Muslim Africans and other groups are routinely painted as 'harmless', or even as 'positive contributors to society'

You obviously haven't read the blog much. Read it a bit more and you'll find many posts in which I discuss the genetic bond of ancestry that constitutes the core of any healthy nation; and scientific experiments showing that the genetic bond between people lays the basis for empathy, which is what makes a nation a nation. I have also emphasised repeatedly that any nation worthy of the name is defined by its shared history, not by abstract values.

It's regrettably true that Jews have been disproportionately involved in promoting the complex of ideas that are driving the genocide of the European people. I myself attempted to trace the origins of the term Islamophobia and concluded that it had been invented by Richard Stone, who is Jewish. I don't buy the idea that it's all a big Jewish conspiracy, however. Jews are also disproportionately involved in the resistance to Islam, which is indeed the major threat we face.

How exactly do Jews benefit from engineering the Muslim colonisation of Europe? Jews are being attacked by Muslims in France; they're fleeing the Muslims in Malmo, Amsterdam, etc. The whole of western Europe is becoming a deeply hostile environment for Jews thanks to the Muslim presence. So how does this benefit them?

The problem with the idea of enforceable human rights is that it is a system designed to suppress democracy. The human rights are so vaguely formulated that they can be invoked for almost any purpose against almost any conceivable target. Yes, you're right. They could, in theory, be used against Muslims. But since the enforcement mechanisms are undemocratic, involving appointed judges who are immune to the verdict of the people, you can be sure that the enforcement mechanisms will be used to support elite-favoured ideology.

That is why the whole concept of human rights, or indeed any undemocratic form of codified constitutional restraints, is flawed. It is a tool for elites to suppress the will of the people.